Detta arbete riktar sig till lärare och lärarstudenter inom geografiämnet. Syftet med arbetet är att belysa olika aspekter av utomhuspedagogik, detta för att kunna förbättra lärares och lärarstudenters arbete med utomhuspedagogik. Frågeställningen som arbetet kommer att besvara är “Vad säger forskningen om positiva och negativa aspekter av utomhuspedagogik i geografiundervisningen?”. Frågeställningen väcktes under vår verksamhetsförlagda utbildning, då vi reagerade på att lärarna inte använde sig av utomhuspedagogik. Genom databaserna ERC, ERIC och Swepub har vi sökt fram vetenskapliga artiklar och doktorsavhandlingar. Detta har gjorts med relevanta sökord utifrån vår frågeställning.   Utifrån resultatet har vi kommit fram till att det främst finns positiva aspekter på utomhuspedagogik, men att det även förekommer få negativa aspekter. Med detta resultat kan vi dra slutsatsen att utomhuspedagogik ger övervägande positiva effekter för elevernas utveckling och lärande.  Detta kan gynna oss i vår framtida yrkesroll då denna kunskapsöversikt har gett oss en medvetenhet om hur viktig utomhuspedagogik är. Men även hur viktigt det är att vi som lärare skapar en välplanerad utomhuslektion då dåligt planerade utomhuslektioner missgynnar elevernas lärande.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

University science and mathematics education today is no longer solely focused on training the small fraction of students who will become tomorrow's science and mathematics researchers, but is required to engage and create scientifically/mathematically literate American citizens (Ball, 2000; Dean, 2009; Kind, 2009a; Mooney & Kirshenbaum, 2009; Olsen, 2009). University professors are typically content experts not trained in pedagogy. This creates unique teaching issues in transforming complex content material. Expert content mastery of a subject can blind faculty to potential student difficulties (Ben-Peretz, 2011; Nathan, Koedinger, & Alibali, 2001). This, combined with limited pedagogical training and curricular constraints, can create teaching difficulties, contributing to high levels of student attrition (Bhattacharya, 2012; Feldon, Timmerman, Stowe, & Showman, 2010). Considerable research has been conducted on best teaching practices and the central role that content knowledge plays in teaching, yet little evidence is found to illuminate the processes by which subject matter content experts (faculty) unpack their expertise for use in teaching (Ball, 2000; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; French, 2005; Weiman, Perkins, & Gilbert, 2010). Much of the research literature defines deconstructing and unpacking content knowledge as the complex processes by which experts transform content knowledge into knowledge used for teaching (Abell, 2008; Ball & Bass, 2000; Hashweh, 2005; Shulman, 1986, 1987). According to the well accepted educational construct known as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), teachers possess unique and distinct sets of knowledge domains that enable them to transform their content into teachable knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987). Much of the literature agrees that strong foundational content knowledge is required in order to develop PCK (Hill, Rowen, & Ball, 2005; Lowenberg-Ball, Hoover-Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Padilla, Ponce-de-Leon, Rembado, & Garritz, 2008). If limited content is a major restriction in the development of PCK, how does this process proceed when content is strong, as in the case of university faculty? This study looked at the processes that occur as content experts (faculty) focus on the deconstruction process in order to develop lessons and teach. The study focused on the components or paths of the transformation process in an attempt to identify the development of the knowledge base that content experts use in order to teach. This study developed a survey from the existing literature in an attempt to illuminate the processes, tools, insights, and events that allow university science and mathematics content experts (Ph.D.'s) unpack their expertise in order to teach develop and teach undergraduate students. A pilot study was conducted at an urban university in order to refine the survey. The study consisted of 72 science or mathematics Ph.D. faculty members that teach at a research-based urban university. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 21 volunteer faculty to further explore their methods and tools for developing and implementing teaching within their discipline. Statistical analysis of the data revealed: faculty that taught while obtaining their Ph.D. were less confident in their ability to teach successful and faculty that received training in teaching believed that students have difficult to change misconceptions and do not commit enough time to their course. Student centered textbooks ranked the highest among tools used to gain teaching strategies followed by grading of exams and assignments for gaining insights into student knowledge and difficulties. Science and mathematics education literature and university provided education session ranked the lowest in rating scale for providing strategies for teaching. The open-ended survey questions were sub-divided and analyzed by the number of years of experience to identify the development of teaching knowledge over time and revealed that teaching became more interactive, less lecture based, and more engaging. As faculty matured and gained experience they became more aware of student misconceptions and difficulties often changing their teaching to eliminate such issues. As confidence levels increase their teaching included more technology-based tools, became more interactive, incorporated problem based activities, and became more flexible. This change occurred when and if faculty members altered their thinking about their knowledge from an expert centered perspective to a student centric view. Follow-up interviews of twenty faculty yielded a wide variety of insights into the complicated method of deconstructing expert science and mathematics content. The interviews revealed a major disconnect between education research and researchers and the science and mathematics content experts who teach. There is a pervasive disregard for science and mathematics education and training. Faculty members find little to no support for teaching. Though 81% obtained their Ph.D. with the intent to enter an academic setting, pedagogical training was non-existent or limited, both prior to and after obtaining faculty positions. Experience alone did not account for confidence or ability to successfully teach. Faculty that were able to `think like a student' and view their material from a student's perspective' seemed to be the most confident and flexible in their teaching methods. Grading and having an open and interactive teaching style, being on the `side of the students' also seemed to allow faculty to connect more deeply with the students and learn about common misconceptions and difficulties. Though most faculty claimed to not teach as they were taught and not recall having specific content difficulties, this essential interaction with many students facilitated a shift in thinking about their content. This shift allowed for a reversal from teacher centered classrooms to student centered. Multiple issues arise when teaching at a traditional larger lecture style found in the majority of universities science and mathematics courses that constrain and provide unique teaching challenges. Many faculty have developed unique tools to incorporate successful teaching strategies, such as daily pre-quizzes and smart-phone questioning as well as small group work, computer posted guides, strategic class breaks, and limiting lecture style in favor of a more active engaged classroom. / Educational Psychology

Student literacy rates across the country are unacceptably low. Teacher preparation has emerged as a priority in both research and practice in efforts to improve the nation's literacy rates. Teacher knowledge and beliefs influence the quality of instruction teachers are able to implement. This study was designed to help educators and mentors of novice teachers understand the relationship between literacy pedagogical content knowledge and literacy teacher efficacy beliefs and changes to this relationship during the course of student teaching. Using a sample of 36 pre-service teachers assigned to student teaching in kindergarten, first or second grade classrooms, literacy pedagogical content knowledge was measured in a multiple-choice assessment that covered a variety of early literacy instructional areas including phonology, orthography, vocabulary, morphology and comprehension. Literacy teaching efficacy beliefs was measured using a self-report questionnaire. Participants completed the survey at two time points, at the beginning and end of student teaching. To determine if a literacy pedagogical content knowledge and literacy teaching efficacy beliefs demonstrated a relationship, Pearson correlations were calculated at both time points. Results of this study suggest that these constructs are not related and operate independently. Additionally this study suggested that while literacy teaching efficacy beliefs improved significantly over the course of student teaching, literacy pedagogical content knowledge did not. Results from this study can inform teacher educators, mentors of novice teaches and professional development programmers on the relationship of literacy pedagogical content knowledge and literacy teaching efficacy beliefs in pre-service teachers. / Educational Psychology

Generalist elementary school teachers have little time to develop enacted pedagogical content knowledge (ePCK) in all content areas. Therefore, the transfer of ePCK from one content area to another, such as between math and science, can help generalist teachers build their knowledge needed for teaching regardless of their content area strengths. This self-study examines the ePCK components and their elements present in both math and science instruction. I am a fifth-grade teacher in Utah County who has been teaching for 4 years. Math is taught daily, and science is taught approximately three times a week. The self-study includes six video observations of my instruction—three for math and three for science—as well as a journal of my thoughts on my ePCK after each lesson and a guided discussion with a colleague while reviewing the video observations. Each data source aims to identify ePCK while noting the similarities and differences in the way it presents in each content area. The data analysis reflected this goal through the coding process. Through analysis, each ePCK component—subject matter knowledge, knowledge of students, and pedagogical knowledge—was observed in both math and science instruction. For subject matter knowledge, the presence is different in math and science, implying that this component was not transferred between the two content areas. Regarding knowledge of students, the presence is similar in both math and science, implying that this component transfers between content areas. The elements of pedagogical knowledge that transfer include knowledge of the importance of and ways to establish classroom structures and knowledge of student thinking about content as a key component to learning. These findings suggest that ePCK is a development of past enacted knowledge. Therefore, the more knowledge that is enacted, the more it develops. ePCK transfers between content areas if the presence of components is both present and are similar. If ePCK is transferred from one content area to another, generalist elementary teachers can use the strengths of their ePCK in one content area to improve that of another. With so few studies conducted on this topic, more research needs to be done to further understand ePCK transfer, especially at an elementary level and in the action of teaching.

The purpose of this study was to examine topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Two experienced chemistry teachers&rsquo / PCK was examined in electrochemistry and radioactivity. To capture participants&rsquo / PCK, all PCK components were studied. To get deep and rich answers to research questions asked, qualitative methodology was used. Participants were selected through purposeful sampling. Data were gathered through card-sorting activity, Content Representation (CoRe), semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. Results revealed that participants had two types of PCK, namely, PCK A for teaching electrochemistry and PCK B for teaching radioactivity. PCK A included content-based and teacher-centered instruction, many links to other topics in chemistry and in physics. The assessment was coherent which included different types of assessment strategies used at the beginning, during, and at the end of teaching. In PCK B, it was less teacher-centered. The link to other topics was limited. Additionally, teachers used fragmented assessment and were less knowledgeable about learners&rsquo / difficulties and misconceptions in radioactivity than they were in electrochemistry. Differences between PCK A and B may be related to nature of the topics. Learners need to have much pre-requisite knowledge both from chemistry and physics to learn electrochemistry. Also, there are more concepts in electrochemistry than there are in radioactivity. It seems that when teachers have to focus on more concepts to teach, they may have a tendency to teach more-teacher centered to save time. Teacher education programs should focus on topic-specific nature of PCK and provide topic-specific training to teachers.

The purpose of this study was to examine topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Two experienced chemistry teachers&rsquo / PCK was examined in electrochemistry and radioactivity. To capture participants&rsquo / PCK, all PCK components were studied. To get deep and rich answers to research questions asked, qualitative methodology was used. Participants were selected through purposeful sampling. Data were gathered through card-sorting activity, Content Representation (CoRe), semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. Results revealed that participants had two types of PCK, namely, PCK A for teaching electrochemistry and PCK B for teaching radioactivity. PCK A included content-based and teacher-centered instruction, many links to other topics in chemistry and in physics. The assessment was coherent which included different types of assessment strategies used at the beginning, during, and at the end of teaching. In PCK B, it was less teacher-centered. The link to other topics was limited. Additionally, teachers used fragmented assessment and were less knowledgeable about learners&rsquo / difficulties and misconceptions in radioactivity than they were in electrochemistry. Differences between PCK A and B may be related to nature of the topics. Learners need to have much pre-requisite knowledge both from chemistry and physics to learn electrochemistry. Also, there are more concepts in electrochemistry than there are in radioactivity. It seems that when teachers have to focus on more concepts to teach, they may have a tendency to teach more-teacher centered to save time. Teacher education programs should focus on topic-specific nature of PCK and provide topic-specific training to teachers.